tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 8, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EST
the minority. many pelosi announced on friday that she would eke the post house minority leader. that is not a good match for her. democrats will no longer pass the bill in the house. what they need is what she's been unable to provide. clear and convincing voice that americans understand american policies are not bankrupting the country or restoring free do. if she had been a more persuasive communicator she could have bated a way her ludicrous understanding. the senate majority leader are inside players that seem to visibly shrink on camera rarely connecting with independent voters that rageed so loudly on tuesday. president obama a different salesman of his own work. congressional workers need a tightly disciplined republican
inner is timety. give law make anothers chance for a direct vote on raising the debt limit. spokesman told the washington time that would be a recent tax and away to shield vulnerable lawmakers from having to take the unpopular vote and would instantly give leverage to those in congress and immediate spending coverage. a republican was asked and he said he would not take a vote on raising the debt ceiling unless its tied with some path to
cutting spending and dealing with deficit. should there be a change in-house and senate leader in washington democrats and republicans are jockeying for post and hoping to get others votes. shirley, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. since obama wanted to rush before we caught on to him. and i have chosen as wanting to go into the service holding back, because i feel obama has never respected our constitution. and i want to not have my son fight under his administration. we need leadership and we haven't had any. host: author in memphis. do you agree with republicans
that pelosi should step aside. caller: she did a good job. host: with what? caller: getting democrats out to the poles. she did good job. i don't think she should step aside. did a good job. host: susan is another democrat. go ahead. caller: first of all, i think obama has been clear on his constitutionle rights as for pelosi stepping down i don't think the "new york times" editorial board should have an opinion any more than nancy pelosi should decide who guides their board. i think she's an awesome and been the only man who's actually led washington. host: okay. what do you like about her? lost her. mike, independent, georgia. "new york times" says to get
perspective independents like yourself. nancy needs to step aside. what do you think? caller: i don't know. when i went to vote. monday i'd like to one thing i'm lost atlantic city the ballets i kind of didn't know about the judges because they're not listd with party affiliations. before i went to the voting booth i tried to find out. it wasn't a central clearing house publically available website with the snip it. so, i think that should be implemented because have to go to the personal web-sites. >> we understand that. what about this question this morning? what should there be a change and house and senate leadership? gainsville? marry and? democratic line? caller: yes. this is marianne. i think pelosi should stay right where she is, if not the
republicans will repeal everything they've done in the last 22 months. it's vital she stays right where she at and fight. caller: alright. host: democratic caller. republican. james. what do you think about your leadership for gop. they need new face? caller: i think they all do. like we had new change all over the ebbing lek trait. host: who's a new face? >> i like banner real well. host: but he was around republican lost control. caller: i know but he's the one that articulates what the republican party wants to have. host: did you support tea party candidate? caller: i like ran paul of what the americans are looking for
which is conservative responsible spending. the out of control spending and everything in washington some things got to be done with it. host: you think senator elect ran paul should get a leadership position. caller: i don't if he should do that right off the bat but his views should be listened to by the other republicans and maybe led toward that way, because something has to be get washington under control. host: on not - or on that point. ran paul said he'd like to see be done, excuse me, up on capitol hill. here's what he had to say. >> you have to look at entitlement. what i would say is not the people currently on social security and not not those that approaching it. was it may be 5.25% under. what should we do to change the
system to make it more sustainable. >> traz retirement age? >> they're already talking about it. raising age, graduating benefits and you have to look at all of the things. they need to be on the table. host: that was ran paul and we're talking about a change in-house and senate leadership. getting all of you to weigh in. here in washington. democratic and republican members of congress are jocking for positions and they will vote for their own leaders but it's your turn to weigh in. ruth on the democrat line your next. >> no change typically in congress. nancy pelosi has been phenomenal. she's passed through so many pieces of legislation that are just sitting in the senate. we have a broken system. it's not charity or majority that rules in the system and we
have very decisive constituency really on cultural issues and how one can say that they want to balance the budget and not get rid of the tax breaks to billionaires is mind-boggling. they're talking out of two sides of their mouth. all the tax cuts should be repealed and we should try and balance the budget a little bit on that score, and we need more infusion in our economy to really stimulate jobs. with the banks and we're still helping them out with the bonds and what bernanke is doing. we need to help the people with mortgage crisis. they still don't know who owns the home. who's holding the mortgages. it's crazy. thanks for listening. host: on that issue of tax cuts and what these perspective leaders are saying on strategy.
how they will negotiate or not with president obama and what he's saying on tax cuts that all came up during the sunday talk shows and as many of you know. president obama sat down and he also addressed the issue. first. erik canner will likely be the next majority leader in the house and what he said on this issue of tax cuts. >> i'm not for de coupling the rates because all that says to people looking to go back and in a put capital to work is you're going to get taxed on any return you can expect. i'm not for raising taxs in the recession especially in job creators that we need to create jobs so desperately again. >> here's the news about washington times this morning on erik canner saying he's expected to leave the gop in the next congress but he would not
promise that representative michelle back match or any other tea party backed housing members of the jury wears would get a high ranking position. though the tea party movements helped republicans gain seats in the last week's election. mr. canter now the house minority whip said he'll endorse jeb when soarling. the washington times said that and now about the house democrats saying democrats tell leader stepping it up and not down despite president barack obama portrayal of tuesdays elections as lacking for democrats the election team is shaping up more of the same. nancy pelosi forced out as speaker as a result for the midterms and friday she'll run for house my morety leader. and several of her deputies say they again l seek or consider
running for leadership posts in the senate. schumer from new york and during bin of illinois and harry reid said they'll support the nevada's quest to retain the chambers top democratic spot. both parties are expected to vote on leadership positions soon after they return to washington next week when john boneer is expected to become speaker. it looks like the leadership in the house and senate will be the same potentially the same member as it has been in the past. you think there should be a change. pittsburgh? daniel. go ahead? >> yeah, hi.. thanks for inviting me to be on. i think nancy pelosi is an effective leader for the democratic party. i think different leadership for
it's national image but in terms of getting things done in congress i think she's shown she can do that. host: want to show you our website. c-span.org. wile while [inaudible] we're here. the president is aing the in yenned apartment. we'll post it on our website after it's done and you can watch it in it's entirety. this is part of his ten day offer sees trip. on tuesday he heads to indonesia and then will travel to south korea and speak to u.s. troops on veterans day thursday and the g20 summit continues into friday where president barack obama will hold a closing news conference. port hero michigan. stephen, would you like to see a
shake up in leadership for republicans. caller: yes, i would. number one, the republicans are leaning too tough to the corporations and we're being, you know, lied to on a daily basis. are you there? host: yeah. we're listening. >> i can't hear you speak but i can hear you speak but can't see you. host: it's a little disconcerting. caller: i'm just tired of the back and forth. you know, we're all-americans. let's get it together and straighten out. we can't afford to be fighting the wars all over the security force for american business to run all over the world and find a cheap flavor that can, you know - we have to start putting americans back to work. if we ain't got americans
working in this country, it doesn't matter. host: did you vote for both democrats and republicans over the year? caller: yes. this is stephen, anyway's. host: you're a republican? >> y yes. i'm an independent basically leaning towards the republican, but you know, we have to straighten this mess out and you know, thank god for steve ban will whether he, where we better start buying american. we can't afford to be supporting other countries that don't support us. and that's all i got to say. host: all right. in the house leadership ranks there's a fight going on, a battle between energy representatives hoiier and over the second position. the second post in the minority and "politico" is that he's claiming the edge over liner.
here's the "washington post". they're saying a compromise could be in the works between the two. one possibility is the everyone move down a slot compromise. that would mean hoiier would become minority whip and the number three post in the minority a job he held in 2006. representative john larson is caucus chairman announced his plans to run. but a democrat from california is running for the vice-chair man slot the five in the leadership. aids suggest one of the two could receive an advisory spot similar to what nancy pelosi gave chris as a special assistant. san diego. what do you think about the "new york times" editorial pages calling for pelosi to step aside? caller: i agree. good morning. yes. nancy pelosi is too polarizing
and too divided the republicans need to do something once they hit their limit they start attacking pelosi and reid and they just, really confuse the voters and i'd like to see like some as my norty leader in the house and i'd love to see boxer as a senate leader. host: michael do you think democrats should work with republican? caller: well, i mean if republicans were democrats, of course they should was its butnbutn but it doesn't seem likely. it's had nothing but, no, no, no. and i honestly don't expect change so i think democrats need
to hold their ground and stand firm and fight back. host: here's president barack obama on 16 minutes talking about working a cross the i'll. >> i understand republicans have a different view so we're going to have to have a negotiation and i'm open to finding a way in which, they can meet their principals and i can meet mine. but, in order to do that think we have to answer the question of how we pay for it. host: should there be a change in-house and senate leadership. bill, independent? caller: good morning. i think one of the articles you read said that it takes different skills to be a minority whip than a majority leader and i agree with that.
but i think pe a majority leade has to reach across the aisle and build coalitions where a whip needs to organize opposition more. but i think nancy pelosi was better organizing opposition maybe than, excuse me i'm a little nervous. yes. you know she may be pretty good in that roll. when you have an election like we have. i think that's another factor and this sort of says the voters would like to see new leadership and direction but i think there should be a change. host: all right. on your point, bill. the washington times on that article i read, say that one possible pelosi opponent is of north carolina that said he may challengeer in for house party
leadership. goes on to challenge saying when she became house minority leader. democrats held 502 seats. 24 fewer than republicans. by early 2009 two years. after. democrats were comfortable in the majority. 50 seat gain in six years but as house democrats lost at least 60 seats on tuesday with a handful of contests still too close to call the party will begin the 112th congress with the fewest seats sense pelosi became the top democrat almost eight years back. pennsylvania. allison republican. what do you think about your party leadership? allison, you with us? caller: yeah. now i think with - well and why nancy pelosi will not be speaker
of the house and hopefully not have the quote, unquote, power but she did. i thought she was too she didn't listen enough to other opinions. to other views. and hopefully, was someone else in that position that more things can get done, and hopefully, the things that we think about most are of course the economy and the health care bill. host: we're talking whether or not there should be a change in-house and senate leadership for both parties. issues republicansic liking nancy pelosi as top leader was part of the articles yesterday in the "washington post". saturday and excuse me todays
says republicans thinking that the election was rejection of pelosi's political agenda is about her remaining in tact. a quote from erik saying think this the voter says we're not listen to you and we think we're right. democrat in pennsylvania. donna? caller: yes. i really like nancy pelosi bow they have demonized her so horribly and part of it pause she's from san francisco and that's horrible thing. a lot of people's opinions on the right. but she is very, you know, strong speaker and i really, really liked her. by wanted to give the republicans any presents but i think with baner and there's
nothing going to get done with. bainer in the house. and mcconnell in the senate. nothing will get done. they'll completely - they're telling us. they'll fight to make sure this president doesn't get a second term. that's what about. >> you follow the earmarks issues? caller: there has to be. i don't think you have to go crazy but this state does need certain things done. host: next probably, like lib minor any leader. mitch mcconnell was on face the nation yesterday. issue of earmarks came up. won't save money. on the issue of whether or not there should be a moratorium he said it's complicated and such a band doesn't save money. soon to be called exciting but
declined to back specific ideas that they have suggested. such as a 5% across the board spending board or a freeze on federal hiring. westbrook field, massachusetts. jim? how you doing today. fine. caller: well you asked too two very important questions. concerning change in republican leadership it's inherited for many years, even decades now there hasn't been a dime's worth of difference with the caveat that republicans were more hyper treatment socialism and republican where is turning the heat under that pot more quickly but they were heading in the same world direction. as concerned nancy pelosi i think she's the best gift to republicans we ever got. when you have 40-50% of the
country rise up in a movement like the tea party and have the speak are of the house referring to them auzion strogh turf. basically insulting the american public telling us we're a bunch of phoneys paid for by corporations, i think that bodes well for the nation. the more pelosi we get the more republicans gain in the couple bent cycle. to the final point, i honestly believe it's very important to return to the constitutionally conservative values that made this nation the type of nation anyone wants to become to. if we become a socialist banana republic as the democrats would have us do there's no more shining be con or march towards freedom or inspiration for the rest of the world and i think that would be a sad world to live in, indeed. host: jim, before you hang up i
want your reaction to what michael bloomberg said to the wall street your. he'ss on a trip in china and said. mr. bloomberg had been campaigning for more moderate candidates and said, if you look at the u.s. and who we're elected to the congress, they can't read. i bet you a bunch don't have passports. we're about to start a trade war with china because no one know is where it is or what china is. what do you think about mayor bloomberg's comments about the newly elected member? caller: perhaps donald trump eyeing potential and probably a disastrous run for the presidency. he's had a lot of things dealing with china as well. he said he sat across from chinese government leaders and businessmen and they have laughed and asked him why does
america let us get away with the things they do. mr. bloomberg, notwithstanding his accomplishments and professional life is not necessarily a role model for the business dynamics to be moving forward if we're going to have an effective relationship with china where we actually start to pay down some of our debt to them. it's going to involve leveling the playing field of the balance of trade between us and china. host: i'll end it there. jim and you and others may be interesting in the last hour today. we'll focus on china. specifically on the military you around the recent investments that they've been make together in crease the military power. we'll talk about that coming up in the last hour of today's "washington journal". back to the question about whether or not there should be change in-house and senate leadership. norman is a democrat go. ahead.
caller: hi. thanks for speaking to me. i'm a lib c liberal democrat. i think there should be no more earmarks but i think nancy pelosi should retire. she's way too far to the right. sold us out on the health care bill. environment and she hasn't wiped out for human rights in torture in guantanamo. she's really been a let down and with, rivalling leadership with her and president barack obama, the democrats are losing they're base. the democrats really need to stand for something. i'm a democrat all my life but this election i worked for a green for governor and the campaign of green for governor and socialist for congress and
the campaign of an independent for state house. democrats brought me a list. . host: on the lame duck session you heard a lot. senate house members will return next week. "new york times" said lame duck assembly appeared to be a play your opportunity. conservatives warned it might use it to push through the cap and trade to curb climate change. energy environmentists hope that's possible. that prospect is now banished. the aids and both parties suggest the chance for action a series of other issues from passing food safety to repealing the don't ask don't tell barge guy men and by sexuals in the serveing of the military to be diminished. stop gap financialing to keep the government running and the
out right expiration of the december 31'st income tax enacted during administration of george w. we'll talk about raising the ceiling of the financial manner in 15 minutes. talk about what is the debt ceiling and what is the discussion surrounding this vote that member of the congress likely have to take. fairfax, virginia. hugo. independent? caller: thanks for taking my call. one thing i wanted to make. one, nancy pelosi may be effective but she's just as polarizing as tom delay or anybody else. how are we going to move forward. for congress o work together. they need them to help create jobs. especially in the nondiscretionle thing. only way for them to do that
that. the fundamental problem we have is money and politics. that have pushed costs. in closing, i want to say the british look like they've been working on the uk model a bit. they realize they're in a lot of trouble. what are they doing they're actually cutting spending and realizing they have action free taxes. and i think that the better issue that the congress brings to the american people is their two options. we can either spend more and raise taxes or spend less and cut taxes. you can't have it both ways. it doesn't cut both ways in tend you need moderates working together and that's problematic given the expense to raise money today. host: before you go sounds like you listen to us on c-span radio this morning. >> absolutely. love it. you guys are awesome and just a comment for brian. you guys do a great job and what
i would say is, if you can figure out a model to get c-span and the free public service across the country, i think that would fundamentally change politics today. people would get a true sense of what's going on. host: let me ask you about your idea or suggestion there needs to be more moderates. can you name a house moderate or senate you'd like to see in lead ere ship? caller: well. i think nancy pelosi, try to keep him under her thumb which is why you have not heard. a guy on the other side of the spectrum. tom davis also is moderate. so, in the senate, it's - i can't think of no one will pop into my head. from the house side the problem is you give story about congressman sit in little white
rooms and they're calling a cross the country trying to raise money for what it costs to fund the elections and they're flexing their support whether they're nowhere still usa calling out to california and new york to get money and then i will absolutely stand the line as long as you give me money. >> we'll leave it there and show you james joe jockeying for the next position against danny hoiier and here's what he had to say. >> i'm part of the democratic whip. i announced i would be running for that position again. unfortunately, between them the top two positions the leader and the whip and we'll see how that works out. i'm perfectly satisfied with nancy pelosi's leadership. i don't have problems with that. i'm also satisfied with the record i laid out as whip.
host: florida. should there be a change in leadership? caller: yes, i feel there should be a change in leadership. just to clean some of the poisonous atmosphere that leaders to the previous dates it's appears to generally be layperson. reminding me that congress is losing the ability to debate or negotiate, compromise or even regulate. it seems like the paradigm of the world loses internet speed five or six years ahead of any particular legislation that any side can hope to pass. it seems like each phase becomes more radical. and so far apart that they poison each other with the perception of compromise that seems to be so far apart. one side of the other seems to swing so far as to claim that the other side hasn't negotiated
in mid faith or come as far as they should. generally. people see that this despair as a political process and watches as the world just wash away the base of american support. despite all the good will and peacekeeping and a great deal of - there doesn't seem recentable return from any particular country. host: ten minutes left here and talking about change in-house and senate leadership. the "new york times" editorial is calling for nancy pelosi to not run as top democracy the democracy say is what democrats need is what she's unable to provide a clear and convincing voice to help americans decide american policy makers are not bankrupting the country or destroying freedom. both her and harry reid the
majority leader in the senate are inside players that seem to visibly shrink on camera rarely connecting with skeptical independent voters that roared lawly on tuesday. caller: good morning. thank you. i am perfectly happy with nancy pelosi's leadership and as a matter of fact. happy with jim as whip. those two people know how to count votes and get bills passed better than any pair that i think we've had in history. nancy's pelosi's past over 400 pieces of legislation. that said, we do need a change in the senate. harry reid is a nice guy. clearly can get along with people, but he's done nothing to be able to get legislations through the senate. that's where the bottleneck is. had he been more effective we
might have seen some change and see some jobs and see and get the reality of president obama's records successful record in that most of the tarp money has been repaid. we have people covered in health care that have not been covered in other words, that themselves would have been able to speak for themselves, had our - the leader of the senate harry reid been able to do a better job of getting some of that legislation passed. i think he's just had just put the republicans on the line and hoping to fill buster and let the american public see exactly how they've been holding hostage to their quests for power. that's really all it is. the only thing they intend to do the next two years is make sure that the president doesn't get anything else done and it can
then turn around and say, see, they can't get anything done and we need to be back in power if american public goes to that their fools. one last thing i think the means this country is a center right country is a myth. i don't see that at all. most people don't vote because moat most people have a live-and-let-live attitude. host: here's the financial times this morning. corporate america welcomes the power shift. is an article going through different topic areas and communications. energy, health care, food. agriculture. on the issue of communications it quotes joe barton a jockeying to become chair of commerce committee. we sat down for with mr. barton for commune day or thes that will air today if your
interesting in hearing what he had to say for the priorities for that committee. houston, texas. pat, independent line. path, are you there? >> i don't think we have pat. let me keep going. we'll get to your phone calls in the minute once we get the lines straightened out. here's the front page of the "new york times" this morning. now in power. gop vows cuts in state budget. confronting deficits that republicans that have taken over state capitals are promise together respond to crippling budget deficits with an array of cuts. among them workings benefits if wisconsin scale back social services in maine. endangers the jobs of thousands of state workers in pennsylvania. states face huge deficits even
after several grueling years of them is drying up. as is a story of how president barack obama will get to choose the top position for the pentagon in shape form policy that way. pentagon openings give obama new options. lots of stories as well on president barack obama's trip overseas. we were carrying his speech on our website to the indian parliament. he spoke this morning and if you want to watch that speech. it's still streaming live and you can watch it on c-span.org. wisconsin. change in leadership? caller: what did you say? yes. i'm happy we got what we did being a republican. you know number one, they talk about the locked box. you know that money has to come
from somewhere. and when they talk about a lock box. the earmarks when they get that money, it has to come from somewhere. where on earth do people think all that money is coming from. out in not in the budget. they opened up the ban frk all the money in social security. they've been robbing that every since and now they're saying it'll take like two people to support. you know, like six people to support like one person on social security. because there's no money there. whatever those figures are. number two, they kept the press goes along with this and how anybody can deny it is pathetic. do you know, when they - i'm losing my train of thought. kudos to everybody that called so articulate. host: trevor in tell cattic
line? caller: good morning. yes, ma'am i don't think pelosi should just step down. from what i understand i just wanted the democrats to up uphold them. and that's what i wanted them to do. but i think it's hard. host ho full page ad this morning joe biden by the publi george w. bush's decision points. the ad was in there with matt lower. and that will air tomorrow. the book comes out tomorrow and we'll talk about that on the "washington journal" as well. about presidential memories there's a piece in the style segment of the "washington post". like most presidential memories.
his is generic and unsurprising. it's a creation of relatively recent invention. product of the post world war ii era and has for all intensive purposes no older precedent. only two are worth reading the first bayouly cease grant's two volume personal memorials. and the second is harry truman's memories. year of decisions and trial and hope. minnesota. an tree a, should there be a change in leadership? caller: i think harry reid. nice to see maybe in place over victor and i think pelosi should go and either congresswoman lee or demi watson should take their place and as far as republicans.
mitch mcconnell and take him in his place and then baern should go but i got no idea who i would want in his place. host: as artable 4a about how much money was made off campaign 2010 said that, call it the midterm stimulus program. record campaign showered millions of dollars on broadcast conglomerates and down home restaurants. candidates spent 50 million on catering and i will kwor and 2.2 million on golfing and private clubs. most of the money was spent in recent months it said the spending came at a fortunate time for many businesses struggling with slow growth. experts predict total spending will approach 4 billion, putting
it on par with the three billion cash for clunkers program in 2009 boosting autosales. one last phone call. oregon. lest your go ahead. democrat line. caller: good morning. our, my mother and i were both voters when president barack obama ran. host: did you vote for him? caller: i did. i'm 28 and my mom was 50. what's interesting is she didn't vote this time and neither did i in the recent voting that's going on and she - i guess we both thought he would do more than he did. we voted for him on the thing he ran on and - excuse me. it's just real interesting that my mom called in like two weeks ago and she was talking about pelosi and she thought that,
pelosi was a republican. said something about, well, about her um... being from a different planet that she stated the fact the were not that. it's just crazy. she was a democrat. host: did you vote for republicans this election cycle or not vote at all? caller: we will vote for obama. that seems to be a democrat or at least stands by what they promise to do. host: one issue for democrat and republicans issue is whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. that's our topic next and we'll be right back.
>> with most election results final and the winner prepare together government use the c span library to see what they said on the campaign trail and during 140 debates c-span covered. share and search all the time for free. it's washington, your way. tonight on the communicators. house energy and commerce committee ranking member joe barton on tele-communications and policy under a republican
controlled house. at 8 eastern on c-span 2. every weekend on c-span 3 experience american history tvg starting saturday at 8 a.m. eastern. 48 hour of people and events telling the american to story. here historic speeches by national leadered and events that shaped our nation. visit college campus as top history professors delve into america's past. american history t.v. all weekend every weekend on c-span in three. host: our guest this morning eric pianin talking about racing the debt ceiling. the headline in the washington times this morning. unfettered vote on the raising the debt ceiling. what is this?
guest: [laughs] um... well the debt ceiling is set by congress by law and basically, it put as limit on the amount of borrowing by the federal government to cover it's operations and to repay borrowing from foreign countries and domestic investors. host: why is it that congress has to raise it? has to have this vote to begin with? guest: well if you look at history through 1917 during world war i. law was passed requiring congress to set a ceiling on borrowing that the government can do. and that law has prevails since then, but it's also been a source of great political mischief and maneuvering. it's really in some ways kind of shameless politics which forces
the party of power to pull up it's boots and make the unpopular vote to raise the debt ceiling while the party out of power stands on the sidelines and hoots and cheers and criticizes the party in power for irresponsible spending policies. host: republicans take control of the house. when will they have to take this vote to raise the debts ceiling? guest: right. well the national debt at this point is around 13 point 7 trillion dollars. government experts project some time next spring. maybe may. the national debt will start to bump up against this latest debt ceiling of 14 point 3 trillion dollars. at that point, the obama administration and the congressional leadership will have to reach an agreement on
what that new debt ceiling will be. it has to be raised. there's no question about that. timing is essential. the, again the politics around spending issues will be intense given you know the huge interest of that during the campaign and you know president obama will have to work out an agreement with the republican leadership in the senate and the house on some kind of new ceiling but it has to go up, otherwise the government could be faced with defaulting on it's obligations and that would be a disaster. we're coming out of the worse recession and turmoil in u.s. history. the last thing we need is to put federal government to default on borrowing. host: there's also this debate coming up on lame duck over stock financials. what's that compare to this whole issue on racing the debt
ceiling. guest: congress has yet to settle on a budget issue really. there's all these spending bills that have not completing they're operating on a continuing resolution. when they come back they'll have to decide additional spending policies and it'll be wrapped up in the whole debate over taxes. the government has to congress has to decide whether or not to extend the as spiring bush tax cuts. also confrontd with recommendations by the presidents fiscal commission that was charged with coming up with recommendations for spending cuts, ways to reduce entitlement spending, ways to put the government on a long term path toward a balanced budget. host: so how might that impact the looming debate over raising
the debt ceiling? guest: think it'll intensify the debate. we've seen over the weekend, congressional leaders like mitch mcconnell the senate republican leader. jim mack that with a lot of influence in the tea party. erik canter. all talking about their reluck stance to go along with raising the debt ceiling or refuse toll go a lon along because of the n of the cuts in the budget. there's going to be a lot of demands made by republicans for additional savings and spending cuts before they're willing to even talk about raising the debt ceiling. host: let's shoe our viewers. he was on meet the press and asked whether or not he would vote for racing the debt
ceiling. here's what he had so say. >> no, i won't vote for it unless debt sealing is combined some path to balancing our budget and return together 202008 spending levels. appealing obama care. we have to demonstrate we have the resolve to cut spending. raising the debt sealing is like paying off your credit card bill but we cannot allow that to go through the congress without showing the american people we will balance the budget. host: washington times quotes a spokesman saying that he will give law make anothers chance for a direct vote on raising the debt limit saying that would break with the recent tactic of bearing the debt limit in parliamentary a nooufrs. way to shield vulnerable republicans and would give
instantly leverage to those in congress hoping to impose spending cuts. how do you do that then? if they put it right there on the table and it's combined spending cut? guest: well, i think what he's saying is he wants to avoid - situation which was quite popular in the past. where leadership somehow find as way to avoid a direct vote on raising the debt ceiling. you either combine raising the debt sealing with some other legislative action or pass a budget and immediately pass another piece of legislation from the house to the senate and which automatically races the debt ceiling. there's something called the again heart rule that republicans, would say, the democrats over the years try to avoid a direct vote on it.
but reality is, there's been a lot of very controversial debt ceiling votes. you can go back to the last time republicans were in control. newt gingrich and bob dole- the house and senate and democratic president was in the white house and it was a huge fight over raising the debt ceiling and gingrich and others said we won't raise it unless we get concessions from the president and we want cuts in medicare. medicaid and energy environmental programs and that's our price going along with it. president said i'm not going to do that. one led to another and then it finally expired and then in the winter of 1995-96, we had the spectacle of two government shout downs. historic events. newt gingrich at one point said if the government shuts down people won't even notice. but the reality was, it was a
huge political backlash and republicans paid an awful price during the next congressional elections, and republicans have been chaste endowed by that as we head into this new, this new congress and this new tension between a republican leadership and another democrat sitting in the white house, we have different views on spending, um... everyone better be careful because you know, the economy is really in a very precarious position. our a lice oversees are watching us closely. you know we've gone through debt crisis in europe. and if we were to default on our obligations, it would make the debt crisis look like a day at the beach. host: wow.
guest: - because the scale of - u.s. obligations. the importance of the united states, to allies around the country, the importance of the dollar and the stability of the dollar, all could be impacted by care less politicking over racing the debts limit. host: headline from yesterday's "wall street journal" the weekend edition. gop to use debt cap as leverage on spending. sounds like the same scenario you are talking about from 1994. i think i read a quote from dick army. republican leader with newt gingrich back then saying, at that time he argued, look the american people think that will never believe democrats want to shout down the government because they association democrats with government and
vice ver v versa for republican. is that how it turns out? guest: i think back then there was a strong antigovernment posture about it by the incoming republicans. and, you know, there was big demands for smaller government, balancing the budget. that was a huge requirement of the contract with america. the republicans pushed. this time around there's a similar movement. we're coming out of a terrible recession. a lot of the democrats felt that not only should we have passed stimulus packet but should have spent a lot more money on stimulating the economy and right now, the republicans who have prevailed in the election are arguing just the opposite, that enough of the stimulus spending. we need more fiscal discipline
so there's talks about, you know, possibly cutting back current level office spending by 100 million dollars which is a huge amount. especially since it would be targeted not to defense and national security but all other domestic programming. if you think about that you're looking at cuts of 22% or more in key domestic programs. that's a lot. that could have a huge impact of things like unemployment insurance - the operations of key agencies including, you know, justice department and e.p.a. and hhs. so there's also other efforts to try to roll back the levels suspend together 202008 levels. .
that is when they think they can win. they are going to hurt the people in the country. they can do the same thing this time. they were opposed to everything. they said certain things were not done, but they were in opposition to it. the other point i wanted to they have 18 months, like the president? now that they have a majority, do we only give them 18 months to get things done? host: to this first test will not happen until may.
guest: there will be others before that. some of these comments over the weekend suggest republicans are demanding good faith efforts by the democrats to show they are willing to cut. with regard to the collar's ther comments, -- caller's other comment, we are coming out of a bad recession, unemployment continues to hover around just below 10%. there is a huge debate over what is the best strategy to try to get people back to work, spurring the economy.
we republicans' argument is need to get our fiscal house in order, slow the growth of spending, extend tax cuts, and we need to get government off of businesses backs. others believe we have not done enough, unemployment is a critical problem. so there is a real tension there. host: and the issue of extending unemployment benefits comes up again at the end of the month. guest: i believe that is correct. the last two times congress has considered extending unemployment insurance, there were big debate between the democrats and republicans. jim bunning led the charge to block an insurance --
unemployment insurance until they realize that that was a dangerous tactic, and then they backed off of that. down the road, i think it will be harder to get approval of any social services, benefit extension, because of this argument that we have to get our fiscal house in order. people are also looking at what is happening in europe, germany, great britain, who are now imposing deep cuts in their spending, and budgetary policies, to deal with their spending. republicans are watching that saying, we should be doing that as well. host: dave. morristown, new jersey. caller: to the previous people, all of this was caused by too much debt. the fact that we are trying to
cut is a good sign. what is the point of having a debt ceiling? we're just going to raise it anyway. we can avoid a government shut down if we just start cutting now. we are just drawn down -- and drawing out the inevitable. republicans have never cut. host: what about that strategy? if republicans could get it approved by the president, start cutting in order to avoid running up against the debt ceiling? guest: they could do that, but it is like running on a treadmill. the scope of the rising debt is so great, you would almost have to get to a balanced budget within months to have any real impact on that. that is not going to happen.
a lot of the cuts that will be approved will not take affect four months down the road. the debt ceiling is our obligation to meet the debt that we've run up. a colleague of mine made the analogy of someone going on a spending spree, buying a yacht, having a party, and then when the bill arrived, they say i cannot pay that, it is too high. that is not where you make the decision on spending. you make it earlier. once you do, you have to live up to your obligations. host: looking at the historical levels of u.s. debt.
do those figures out about right? guest: i think they do. a lot of that is our obligation to investors, domestic and foreign. part of that is the government borrowing from itself, dipping into the social security trust fund, other things, to keep things going. that is factored into the $13 trillion totaled. host: joe, a long island, new york. caller: talking about debts and deficits, one thing i did not hear about before, a total of the fall. -- total default.
what happens, for example, if california goes bankrupt? if i could not pay my bills, the creditors would line up to take my car, my house. what happens when a large state goes bankrupt? guest: it is a good question. the immediate effect is that government will have trouble borrowing in the future and will have to pay a much higher interest-rate for borrowing. i think it would undermine the confidence that allies have in that country, if it were the united states, which is a superpower in the world looked to for support, stability in times of crisis.
it would have a terrible, detrimental impact to our credit rating, it could have a ripple effect throughout our markets. there are all kinds of consequences for an established country, government, welshing on its agreement to pay its borrowers. we have seen that, not in a large scale, but in a medium- sized scale from what we saw in europe last summer. greece, spain, and other countries were having problems with runaway spending, oversized debt, difficulty in paying their bills and creditors. the crisis in greece required a
global response, really, with many of the other european countries stepping in, as well as the u.s., stepping in to help, international financial institutions, rushing in to prop up the government. since then, things have stabilized. i think they are now in a position where they can readily barrault, but that was not the case a few months ago -- borrow , but that was not the case of a few months ago. host: a lead story about republicans taking control, looking at taking tax cuts u increases off the table. instead, they are looking at cutting state budgets, including
reducing public workers' benefits, scaling back social services, selling state liquor stores. berkeley, california. elaine. caller: i do not know how they can not understand this. [unintelligible] and the hughost: all right, dav. williamsburg, virginia. caller: there is a huge amount of the spending in government.
rick -- misspending in government. guest: well, i think if you talked to newt gingrich, he might disagree with you. the public backlash to the government shut down led to losses in subsequent midterm elections. gingrich eventually stepped down as speaker and left the congress. i think the government shut down, in a way, was the beginning of the revival of the democrats and led to them taking control of congress. but the wheel turns.
democrats had a dreadful tuesday at the polls. republicans are back in the driver's seat, certainly in the house, will have huge influence in the senate. they feel this is the solution for economic recovery, which is fiscal stability, putting our financial house in order, cutting spending. we will have to see who is right. host: mary, independent line. charleston, california lawful -- south carolina. caller: i am calling about the raising deficit. the first thing they want to preach about is not having enough education to get these high tech jobs. but in the same senate, they say we need to cut spending in schools. why not talk -- start from the
top, from the senate on down, and cut some of their benefits. we put all of our money back into the economy. the benefits these people are receiving in government, they ought to implement some sort of program. it seems to me you grow up in welfare, your children do, and it is all based on drugs. maybe we can get them off of drugs and educate them. part let's take the first of her question, benefits for members of congress. it is a pretty small percentage of the budget. guest: this is a perennial
complaint from individuals. what are individual members of congress doing? the reality is, over time overtime, salary increases, things have been going on. the national debt nearly doubled during the bush administration. both parties are responsible, and i understand the caller's frustration of spending. it is all visible. but this is only a tiny fraction of the spending we're talking
about. if you are serious about doing something about the deficit, you have to look at things like how much we are spending on defense. we have been financing two wars, basically on a credit-card. you have to look at tax cuts that have denied the treasury trillions in revenues, you have to look at entitlement spending trends, and you also have to look at health care, which is also a cost driver for the government. host: let's listen to what rand paul had to say when he was on abc yesterday talking about where he thinks cuts should be made. >> you have to look at entitlements. >> social security? >> of not those currently on it or soon approaching, but we shall be looking at 55 and under, what can we do to change
the system to make it more sustainable? >> raise the retirement age? >> we may have to. we may have means testing, benefit tests. all of these things need to be on the table. host: dallas, texas. cecile, democratic line. caller: you have little choice. you cannot not spend. the democrats were advising obama. he is not an economist, never has been. he was being advised by these keynesian economists to keep borrowing money, and then you can spend your way into prosperity. the other people just want to cut. does that ever get us out of trouble, just cutting?
host: does that get to the real issue of tackling the deficit? guest: i think it helps, there are techniques that have been used, like imposing pay-as-you- go requirements, that any new program that needs to be -- any new program needs to be paid for. a lot of it depends on the economy. bill clinton was fortunate in that the economy turned, there was a technology bobble and that -- bubble that helped clinton and others to balance the budget. there was also a solid underlying scheme to get to balance. by passing that, it gave wall
street confidence that the government was serious about doing that. that sparked activity on wall street, more confidence in wall street. the combination of serious spending cuts, a serious budget approach, plus a revival of the economy, together can get you to a balanced budget. >host: we have a tweet from a viewer -- guest: i think the federal reserve, in its effort to stimulate the economy, 1st lower short-term interest rates -- first lowered short-term interest rates to get companies to expand, people to spend, and
eventually, interest rates fell almost 20. you cannot go any lower than where they are now. the next tactic, which was announced last week, was to focus on long-term borrowing. so the fed is going to lower interest rates for long-term borrowing, hoping that that will somehow stimulate the economy and get businesses to invest more. the reality is, the government has tried just about everything. the federal was served is running out of tricks, tools to move the economy along. we will have to see if ben bernanke's latest plan will work. host: we are speaking with eric pianin.
york, south carolina. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to make a comment. over all the years, they have dipped into social security with and i owe you -- iou. and that is our money. we put that money in there to take care of ourselves. we were not asked to donate the money. it was taken. also, an average american family, we run our budget based on what we have and what we have to spend. this is common sense bookkeeping. guest: those are all good points. i just made a note before i came over here -- we were talking
about the total outstanding debt, are around $13 trillion. but a component of that, intra governmental holdings, dipping into social security, iou's, that constitutes $4.50 trillion. eventually, there will be a day of reckoning and they will have to cover that borrowing. there was concern for the first time about the social security system. it will remain stable for decades to come, but there will
be a time when the social security system will not be able to sustain benefits at current levels. that is when the government will have to figure out what to do with all of these iou's. host: bombay, florida. william. caller: teddy roosevelt would be rolling around in his grave if he knew that we were in debt to foreign countries. by the way, the cold war is not over. that is a misconception. they would love to topple our system. these loans that we have taken from these foreign countries are illegal. maybe we should apologize, maybe not. but investments are risky. you rest on a bad investment.
he made it with people like greenspan, bernanke, geithner, who believe in what really amounts to a false legend. guest: probably the majority of our debt is to china, japan, great britain, a few other foreign countries. i think this is a cause for concern, both by americans and chinese, too, who are looking at our financial situation, wondering whether the u.s. government should not be doing more to check deficit spending. so it is an interesting dynamic where we have a foreign power
chastising us for our domestic policy. i think a lot of people take umbrage with that. there is nothing illegal with borrowing from foreign countries. it is totally legal. the question is whether it is good policy, over the long term, whether we need to move away from that reliance from a few countries. host: sherry, republican line. richardson, texas. caller: good morning. a couple of things. the 1994 controversy between the republicans and clinton over the debt ceiling, they are just different situations in the world. we could afford to play games and the political then. bill gates basically bailed us out with the tech bubble.
this time, it is not going to work out that way. china has 3 billion people. india has almost as many. and they want to be the big dog in town now. they are going to push us out of the way. if we do not cut our budget, i am talking everything, military, social security, medicaid, everything needs to go. get rid of 30%. that goes for all of the congressional perks and everything else they have in washington. host: eric pianin? guest: i do not think that has ever been done in history. as we said earlier, the republicans are talking about a $100 billion cut back in spending over the coming year in
domestic spending areas, not including defense and national security. if you were to do that, it would be roughly a 22% saving in spending by agencies and government programs, not quite the 30% suggested. host: is it feasible to cut that much in one year? guest: i do not think so. as i said, it has never been done before. the reality is, it is great to talk tough, have these great schemes for deficit reduction, but when the time comes to actually do it, those things are difficult. members are larger -- are part of a larger political organization, but they are also accountable to their constituents. even with a big movement against
the marking, -- earmarking, spending cuts, there will always be pressure on congressional members to help out their districts, help out their local universities, help unemployment in their districts. when you get down to the nitty gritty of the decision making, it is not quite as easy as globally reducing spending. host: next phone call. detroit, michigan. caller: i wonder why you are now comparing the reagan recession to the current situation, getting out of debt. the money coming in,
that was from the collapse of greece and the spanish economy, and it is not all from our debt ceiling lowering. guest: i think you are right, shortly after president reagan took office, the country went into recession. he pushed through a major tax cut tralee after he took office -- shortly after he took office. there was the argument that this would grow the economy. the reality was, the deficit began to rise. reagan subsequently went along with a couple of tax increases, which is often not mentioned by republicans today when they harken back to the reagan era. that was a difficult period for
the country, and economic rollercoaster, and in a sense, we are back on a rollercoaster. and we are not facing the terrible economic crisis we were a couple of years ago, but still, the economy is stalled. it will be interesting to see this clash of views and philosophy, whether it helps the economy or not. host: for more on the debt ceiling, good to fiscaltimes.com. eric pianin has been our guest. next, we turn to energy, policy, what republican gains mean for that. first, here is a news update. >> president obama says he
supports india's bid for a permanent seat on the un security council. the announcement came during a speech to the indian parliament. india has been pushing for a permanent security council membership for years. you can hear the president's speech in its entirety at 10:00 eastern on c-span radio. in iraq, leaders of the main political blocs are holding a meeting. secretary hillary clinton will not confirm that factions have reached a deal to form the new government. on capitol hill, the causes of the gulf oil spill will be presented for the first time by investigators from president obama's independent commission. the findings could shift the blame of the dispute to companies responsible. the three companies' most involved are halliburton, transocean, and bp.
they will be on hand to respond to questions and respond to allegations. those are some of the latest headlines. > this year's studentcam contest is in full swing. this year's theme is washington, d.c. through my lands. -- lends. s. for all the rules, go to studentcam.org. >> it is all available to you online and on social networking sites. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus local content
vehicle. it is washington your way. now available in more than 1 million homes. host: gene karpinski is the president of the league of conservation voters. let me again -- begin with election day 2010. critics of president obama's climate change agenda says environmentalists are to blame for democrats losing the house. if you look at those who lost, they had voted for the cap and trade bill, they had been on board with doing something about climate change. guest: we did an election evening poll of the voters and ask them, those who voted for republicans, in 83 battleground
districts why they voted that way. 1% said cap and trade. not a key issue. then we gave them a list of six issues, cap and trade was 70%. clearly, we lost a lot of friends in the house. but this election, sadly, was not the -- about the issue of clean energy. it was about the concern aof deficit, debt. if you look at the 40-some members who voted against cap and trade, more than 60% of those seats turned over. there are a lot of issues at play here, no doubt. it is not the issue that voters were thinking about. host: you do not think that this
was a referendum on cap and trade? certain members in virginia had difficulty explaining why he had to approve certain provisions in negotiations. then you had joe manchin shooting at that sort of legislation. guest: absolutely. there are a couple of races, but this is part of an overall conversation. we asked the voters on election night why they voted. they clearly said this is not why they voted. big oil and their allies in congress claim that they want to take us backwards, but that is just wrong. it does not mean that we are proud to have a tough fight to protect what we have so far. host: so you admitted defeat.
what is next for the green agenda? guest: the voters also made it clear that they want something to happen. we believe there is a lot of support for nobles, clean energy, moving forward. they won the government to cut corporate pollution, go forward, not backwards. the policies of the public are clear. the weed to be clear also that the new leadership in the house is not very sympathetic to our issues. we do a score card every year, a national environmental score card. you can see the environmental rating for every member of congress. nancy pelosi has a score of 92%. mr. boehner has a score of 2%.
that is a big difference. it will be difficult to make progress in the next couple of years, but we want to try. let's see if we can get some smaller pieces. we are not going to pass a comprehensive bill, we are not kidding ourselves. but we also know that we will also have to play defense. host: let's begin with what you want to be done on the administration level. what do you expect from epa? guest: the supreme court that was given to us by president bush said the epa has a job to do, regulate carbon pollution. sadly, they dragged their feet a little bit. now they're starting to move forward. we cannot let polluters off the hook. that is their job, to protect public health. they are beginning to move
forward on that. some in congress want to block that. we think it is wrong. we believe it is against the law, against public health, it is bad for security. we think the government needs to do its job in moving forward, and we will have to work with congress to stop that effort. host: what do you want to see from the epa? guest: let's talk about what they are doing. with automobiles, when president obama came in, he wanted to make automobiles go further on gasoline. that is good for everybody. it creates a clean energy jobs, is it better for the planet. epa and the department of transportation announced plans in may, regulations to require cars to go longer. those are the kinds of efforts that the government should do,
use its ability under the clean air act to protect public health and to reduce our dependence on oil. that is exactly the kind of progress we need to make. the oil companies actually support the decision to go forward, and that is great. host: in the newspapers this morning, the great transmission heist -- guest: if we are going to have a
new clean energy future, we need to do something about transition -- transmission. in the state of california, they have the best laws in the country to protect our public health, keep the air cleaner. two texas companies put a measure on the ballot to block that law. global warming was on the ballot. over 60% of the public in california rejected that effort to block that law. why? they understood it was brought by two texas oil companies, it would hurt jobs and public health. california is leading the way on clean energy, clean energy jobs, protecting public health.
you need transmission for some of the effort that is going on because the solar is in place and will need to be transmitted to more remote places. host: our guest is jean karpinski, the president of the league of conservation voters. -- gene karpinski, the president of the league of conservation voters. there will be some jockeying for and the senate energy committee. guest: mr. waxman is a great outgoing leader. mr. bergman has been a best friend of bp. mr. upton has been a moderate
over his career. he has the 12th best score for a republican. we do not agree with him on everything, but we can certainly agree with things with him. clearly, on the record, mr. blarton has been the best friend of big oil. host: you do not get involved in that? guest: not at all. you remember there was a fight last year with mr. dingell. that is something the party decides. we do not get involved in who controls particular committees in that particular way. host: article that i have read going forward on the energy agenda say that president obama
backed away from cap and trade after the election, saying there is more than one way to skin the cat. as the papers put it, he seemed to walk away from the legislation. guest: i think we had our best chance to pass a comprehensive bill in this congress. it made important steps to create new energy jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and protect public health. but it failed in the senate. that particular approach may not happen in the next couple of years. we need to do some other things. we need to go back to the states. they need to see some more progress. we can look at new efficiencies, at a greater electrical standard. smaller steps to progress. third, we need to work with the
government to make sure that we can protect jobs and create more clean energy jobs. we may have to spend time playing defense so that we do not block people from doing their jobs. host: jo, alabama. go ahead. caller: with all due respect, i disagree with half of what he has to say in regards to this. we are in such critical trouble in the nation. if we had an administration that was honest with the people, and put together a plan like a good ceo would, and that would be to bring everyone in the industry together to solve the problem --
we have sent hundreds of billion dollars overseas, and it is affecting our security. it is not too late to start. all of these other energy sources could be part of a support system that we can work on developing. host: what about and all of the above option, including drilling? guest: you make an important point, we are getting our clocks cleaned because we have china and germany leading the world in new energy technologies. we cannot drill our way out of this. drilling will continue to occur, we do not disagree with that. the problem is, we need to be moving forward. we need to be more efficient and
try to save the planet as much as we can. we also need to look into wind, solar, geothermal. those are resources that are not going to go away. they're actually going to get cheaper over time. if we are going to be china and germany over into security, we need to move over to more nobles. we should use our american know- how to get ahead of the game. host: west virginia. caller: i am sure i am not the first to challenge c-span on what is happening here on a mountaintop removal. i am a coal miner. i imagine that coal will be a part of our energy future for another 50 years. there is a lot that we can to to lessen the impact of col.
there is a byproduct called slurry which is being piped into the underground water systems and also into larger areas in west virginia. there is technology that can actually eliminate this slurry from being produced and then they can be remined. congress has set aside $2 billion for a car been sequestration that one of the loose in any of the -- used in any of the abolition mountains. there are -- apple latin nouns. there are a lot of things -- appalaichian mountains. there are a lot of things that we could do to make mining
better. guest: we certainly agree not to talk removal as a way to do coal mining is disastrous for the environment. it pollutes the drinking water. talking about coal ash, it is a serious problem. right now, the epa is taking public comment on how to deal with coal ash. if they do what they should do and it clear that this is a hazardous substance, they will be likely to put regulations in place to stop this from happening. we need to move to new energy sources, but as you said, kohl will be here, but we can do this -- coal will be here, but we can do this smarter. we do not need to be dumping into the rivers. host: next caller. caller: what is going to happen
to jobs? we had gasoline and shoot up and that caused a lot of trouble to the system. if we are back to charging $100, we will have no automobile industry. guest: and there is no doubt high gas prices has a serious impact on consumers. those prices will continue to go up, partly because we are too dependent on foreign oil. secondly, we need to reduce the cost of driving. auto makers were slow to get there, but they finally figured out they should be in favor of making more fuel-efficient cars. that is the way to go forward. it creates new energy jobs, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and protect public
health and the past. that is a win for public health and the planet. it is a way to buffer ourselves against higher gas prices in the future. host: san antonio, texas. bill. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a member of the league of conservation voters, longtime environmental sympathizer. i think most of the efforts of these talking heads, if you want to call it that, -- most of the people that i talk to do not recognize the problem of climate change. you only hear about solutions. maybe it is too complicated. i do not think so.
the environmental community is always talking about saving the planet, showing pictures of polar bears. anyways, it is not save the earth, as i understand it, it is save human civilization. guest: thank you for your support, and you make a profound statement. not everybody believes in climate change. not everyone believes global warming is happening. but those who have studied it the most, 99% of scientists, they agree that this is happening. last year was the eighth hottest month of recorded temperature going back to 1880. did we hear much about that in the media? not much at all. clearly, climate change is happening.
we have seen what is happening in russia. we have seen in a tense climate offense. -- in a tense climate -- intense climate events. even george bush recognize that climate change is real. even for those of us who do not believe, the way forward to create new technologies, clean energy jobs, to reduce dependency on foreign oil, all of that still makes sense. host: gerald. reno, nevada. republican line. caller: i am a union electrician. unemployment out here is around 15%. a lot of us have stayed busy on
these so large jobs. the one thing that "the wall street journal" did not mention is china has superior grid technology to us now. as well, how much they subsidize coal and nuclear power. i do not want to take anything from those industries, but we could spread things around. solar panels produced the most power when the most power is needed. we have nuclear power plants that have turbines that are turned off at night because we do not need the power at night. there is little inefficiency there and we can help to balance that extra demand during the day with solarz. host: on these jobs that u.s.
and other construction workers are on, how is the pay? caller: i am a union electrician. unless i work outside of my area, i make the same amount of money. it is a good paying job. certain classification get a standardized union wage. it is a good paying job. host: who is hiring you, local government, state, corporations? caller: we have a federal mandate that requires us to produce a certain amount of power with renewable energies. the power company is giving a lot of incentives to municipalities, homeowners, to the industry to do these jobs. you see it in the school districts, other municipalities
, citizens in their houses -- everything. it is pretty big here. host: he was referring to the "wall street journal" editorial the great transmission heist. guest: you make a good point about what a new energy future could look like. 29 states have passed similar laws which would require utilities to create a certain amount of power from the nobles. it makes sense, that is how you create a market. -- from renewals. -- from renewables. christine o'donnell was the darling of the tea party, but she did not understand these issues. harry reid was a big champion of a clean energy future. he did campaign ads talking
about the vision of a new energy future. he won, to the surprise of many people, but one of his main messages is about bringing these jobs to nevada. people understood that and i want to go forward, not backward. we endorsed him at a plant to raise money and bring jobs to the area. the same thing in colorado. michael bennett. challenged by a climate skeptic. ken buck said that global warming was a hoax. people in the state said the that was crazy, that makes no
sense. he retracted it a little bit since, but the campaign jumped on that and michael bennett won. if you talk about all the benefits of this sort of thing, it can work. you see particularly in california, colorado, washington, the benefits of a clean energy future, and they are voting that way. host: how much of this issue did we see in 2010? guest: we spent quite a bit of money in state races across the country. we raised over a million dollars for candidates that we supported. we contributed about $350,000 as well. we lost our biggest race in
california. we helped to donate about $1 million into that race. it was a good investment. host: on the state level, 20 states have this renewable energy standard. republicans took control of many of the state governments. where do you expect the standard will be rolled back? guest: is a good question. that is one of those proposals that have bipartisan support. if you go back to the u.s. congress, we believe that measure could still make progress in a new congress. senator bingaman passed a bill out of his committee that had 15% grenoble standards for the entire country, bipartisan support. he introduced a single version of that bill with five republicans and the senate on board. that is the kind of measure that
we think can move forward even in a different congress, and we certainly think in the states. not only should we not be going backwards, we think we can make progress. it is good for our economy and good for public health. host: james is joining us, independent line. caller: my issue is -- what i want a comment about today as -- my issue is 3 energy bridgette the problem with free energy as it is -- free is a to -- my issues free energy. the problem with a free energy is is free. we have technology that can maximize sunlight to cook stuff. i cannot go to wal-mart and buy a sun-powered stove. we have never second boil water that we are not using. -- have mirrors that can boil water that we're not using.
i heard that they are trying to make a steam-powered generator in nevada or something. the problem is, we can talk about it and try to educate people about it, but the issue comes to a dead end when we hit people making lots and lots of money on inefficient energy. guest: right now the government is set up to literally put hundreds of billions of dollars subsidizing the dirty energy, whether it is more subsidies and tax breaks for drilling, more money and tax breaks for other, and we don't put enough research money and invest the money to clean energy. we think that is like reading to demand -- why creating demand gives new energy sources 8 lead up if we could level the playing field in terms of government investment, clean energy will win hands down. that hundreds of billions of
dollars had started it is time at least in some states -- they have a hundreds of billions of dollars in a head start. at least in some states -- there is more technology on the shelf and on the marketplace because the incentives have not been creative. we will get there, but we need to get there sooner. host: we're talking about energy legislation agenda. it is the topic of "the christian science monitor magazine," their cover story, "where are we headed? the future of energy." taxe -- texas. caller: being from texas -- you talked about it a little earlier -- we are seeing this hoax movement that is increasing as radical ideology against climate change, against the exceptions
of global warming. while it may not be an increasing phenomenon in other areas of the country, it is very prominent in the south. my question is, how do we, as a climate change believer or whatever you want to call it, how do we educate in a non- aggressive manner but at the same time tell these people, look, this stuff is a real and we need to confront this or we're going to be behind? host: are you still there, craig? caller: yes. host: let me tell you about an article in "folate times" that says "climate scientists planned campaign against global warming skeptics. the effort is a push back against congressional conservatives who have vowed to go relations on greenhouse gas emissions," just so you know that.
jean karpinski. -- gene karpinski. guest: some people don't see the problem as we see it. the fact that the eight warmest months in history were this year. quite frankly, the media is part of the problem -- not c-span, because they bring all kinds of voices, but many of the media only tell one side of the story. we have the tea party group, and most people -- they get their news from fox news did they put on people and a regular basis that say that global warming is a hoax. that is what you listen to and here, he will not allow whole story to the kind of campaign that greta just talked about is important. but even for those who don't believe it, they ought to see that the picture for jobs and
security -- future for jobs and security is also important. we're not going to survive as a country competing with china and germany and other countries if we are stuck in the old ways. we need to move forward. host: it is expensive, though. even the independents, people who don't necessarily know about the science part of it but just opposed to it because it is expensive and will cost money to invest in this type of research in different areas. given that, and given our economic situation, where can -- where would you agree to compromise with republicans? guest: part of the expense is to level the playing field. if we caught a top of the subsidies that go into dirty energy sources and put it in to clean energy and make it a level playing field, that is a great bargain. you might see some bipartisan support for that kind of effort.
member to come in terms of expense, -- no. 2, itunes that expense, the cheapest and cleanest way -- in terms of expense, the cheapest and cleanest way is more efficient cars. just set standards. we should do it for our buildings. 40% of the pollution we're talking about -- the bill that failed and the senate had a smaller piece requiring buildings to be more fuel efficient -- i mean, more energy efficient. quick as, cheapest, cleanest, saves consumers money, creates the new jobs to make clean energy cars, cleaner cars. that is a great step forward in the short term. host: an e-mail from mexico. "policy is sinking to the bottom of the ocean -- with the debt
california is sinking to the bottom of the ocean of debt that they said they expect the rest of america ought to save them by a bailout. look at california's debt." guest: what they look that is half a million new jobs -- california is the third worst unemployment in the country. the new jobs came from the clean energy sector. that is the move forward to get as part of the mess we are in. they are trying to clean up. in terms of the new jobs created in california, the clean energy jobs. that is the wave of the future. host: here is a tweet -- i just lost that tweet but i will read an e-mail instead "simply tax oil instead of petrol taxes -- instead of payroll taxes."
guest: it makes a lot of sense, but in the political climate we are in, it is hard to raise taxes, even if it is just a tax shift. this is what we're seeing in some states, where they have to lead the way. the lead the way in but will energy sources, other -- they led the way in renewable energy sources and other policies. it is complicated politically in the moment we are in, but at the end of the day, we need to put a price on pollution. host: i found that tweet here. guest: again, that money can be used for mass transit, for example. you can rebuild the infrastructure to fix our
falling-down roads and bridges, etc. it depends on what the money is used for. there are ways to invest that money and a clean energy future. host: mark has been hanging on the line, louisville, kentucky, republican. caller: i wanted to ask the tournament if he thought that high-speed rail -- asked the gentleman if he thought that high-speed rail would be a new option and a good option, for fuel, to make it easier on the air and everything and give everybody jobs. the technology on that is already in other countries. we should have it here in this country. guest: you got it right. that is an example where the rest of the world -- we used to
be the leaders in technology. now we are falling behind. whether it is wind turbines, high-speed rail, automobiles as well. in the recovery act that passed last year, there was about $8 billion to begin to start new high-speed rail projects. we are probably going to see one between nevada and los angeles. it makes more sense that the airplanes people have to take. -- than the air plants people have to take it again, we need to see some of the states create new models. people see them and understand and appreciate them. again, we create lots and lots of new jobs, reduce pollution, reduce our dependence on foreign oil. it is win win win. host: phoenix, you are on the air with gene karpinski.
caller: i just wanted to say that i am one of those lonely people that listens to fox news, and i just wanted to tell you that i believe -- i am one of those people that believes it is just a fraud and a hoax. i do a lot of my study on the computer. i go through thousands of website and i do my on studying. i want to remind you that barack obama in the early 1990's started the chicago climate exchange before he was a senator, along with al gore, made billions of dollars. i am sure that your guest is aware of this. guest: well, i was actually not aware that president obama made billions of dollars in the early 1990's. i am not sure what website used for that.
you can watch whatever channel you wanted but let's be clear, there is a clear consensus on this in the scientific community that the problem is real. host: she says she is doing her own research and is looking of different things on the internet. you obviously disagree with her. where would you director to go -- direct her to go to challenge her? guest: the union of concerned scientists studdies the stuff, and is studied around the world. go to the department of defense website -- hardly some radical group, or some group that is seen as a green. the department of defense has a lot of data about the challenge of climate change and why it is affecting our security. i worked with a lot of veterans and the past year who are in iraq and afghanistan and they
say we need a new way of doing business. we are too dependent on oil. those are two good examples of places to go could again, everybody -- those are two good places to go. again, not everybody is going to agree, but even if you don't think the climate change is real, it makes sense for our economy and security. host: north carolina, good morning. caller: i would like to make a comment i never got to the last person -- like to make a comment in regard to the last person. hope in ae much republican-controlled congress or administration doing that much, because when you look at
the last three republican , reagan hadons republica secretary watts, pushed senior wasfor mining -- bush senri bornior 9 -- bush senior was for mining and gas extraction, busch jr. was for the top mining. host: will take over t -- who will take over the committee? guest: doc hastings. a big difference there. i want to be an optimist, i anm an optimist. the first president bush was instrumental in passing the clean air act.
we did not agree with him on everything but we agreed with him on that. there is no doubt that polluters who lot invested in these new people in congress will be calling in their chits. there are some in the congress now who want to make smaller steps forward, whether it is more efficiency, more credits for renewal, things like that. the best part is we will make it is back in the states, -- best progress we will make his back and the states, and the government can do stop as long as the polluters -- we will miss a lot of our friends and the congress and that is too bad, but don't be overly optimistic and sugarcoat what just happened, we can do together but also -- but see what the things
are that we can do together but be aware of the attacks that will come. host: how many moderate republicans and do you see that you may be able to convince to vote with you on your side? guest: the committee structure is not yet set. it is a question that remains to be seen. some of the members that are coming back into progress, republicans, we actually -- that are coming to congress, republicans, we actually endorsed. some of these numbers from suburban areas. the voters in those districts did not vote to go back environmental protection -- roll back environmental protection. those numbers in those districts, if they want to keep their jobs, they need to understand these issues, because the voters are clearly on the side of creating this new jobs and protecting the planet. there are a lot of members here.
we would like think that some of them are smart enough to understand the vice chair of my board is probably the most pro- environmental member of the house of representatives. he understands why you have to be bipartisan. we work with both sides. we have to. in order to pass laws, you have to of bipartisan support. host: for more information, go to lcv's website. gene karpinski is the president. thank you for talking to our viewers. an update on what is making news on c-span radio. >> republican congressman darrel issa says that he will oppose
any compromise on the bush-era tax cuts that does not include cuts for wealthy americans, saying that tax certainty is probably more important for investors than for other americans. president obama says the that the bush tax cuts, which are set to expire in january, should be made permanent for middle-class americans, adding that it would be unfair to the wealthiest because they don't need the money. as for the incoming congress and the democratic leadership roles, representative jim clyburn, the current majority whip, remarked earlier that he is the underdog in the race against steny hoyer for minority whip, adding that he harbors no ill wills against steny hoyer or nancy pelosi, who said she would run for minority leader. he said that she is the democrats' quarterback and was
entitled to continue in a leadership role. a 21-member group, which includes four newly elected lawmakers, will discuss the body's rules and calendar and flow operations as they prepared to be the majority party in the next congress. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> every weekend on c-span3, american history tv, starting on saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. here historic speeches by national leaders, eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums and historical sites and college campuses, as history professors and leading historians build into america's's past. american history tv, all began, every weekend, on c-span3. >> tonight on "the
communicators," representative joe biden on the future of telecommunications -- c- spa -- representative joe barton on the future of telecommunications policy under a republican house. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is drew thompson, director of chinese policy at the nixon center. some say that china is a growing threat. is it? guest: threat is a combination of capability and intent. we can track their capability, but it is difficult to know what their intent is. it is an opaque system and we do not have a lot of cooperation with them at the moment. there is a lot of mistrust in the relationship, and mistrust goes both ways other countries have robust military and they are not a threat. we have a much better sense of
intent. with china, we don't have much sense of that. host: if you look at the united states, $663 billion, compared to chat, $98.8 billion. we are at spinning china but a lot. -- we are outspending china by a lot. guest: there is a lot of question about the methodology, how they come to that number. the real question is, again, what are they going to do with that? a lot of their investment is not improving significant abilities, in some cases direct a -- against -- a lot of their investment is on improving significant capabilities, in some cases directed against the united states. if you look at how they ship their military, much of the spending went towards improving the likelihood of the soldiers. the increase the budget for food sought to elect 50 cents per day for soldier that is
suddenly millions and millions of dollars. one has to take a surge in grain of salt with the total amount -- a certain grain of salt with the total amount. i the way, it is on an upward growth trajectory. -- either way, it is on an upward growth trajectory. host: there is military tension right now. why? guest: i would not call attention so much as mistrust maybe we don't appreciate one another. the united states does not have many competitors. the only potential competitor on the distant horizon is possibly china. there is mistrust, there is not a lot of the mountains of cooperation between the two, and that is how the u.s. builds its cost with other partners in countries, we cooperate together -- builds trust with other partners and countries, that we cooperate together. there is a deficit in the
amount of we trust one another. that is not the same as the tensions. there are interests or we have chinese platforms and u.s. bonds in close proximity. -- chinese platforms and you as platforms, and to close proximity. host: the president is skipping town and this could add to the mistrust or whatever is going on -- is skipping china and this could add to the mistrust or whatever is going on between the countries. guest: he has made that visit, and president hu jintao is supposed to come to the united states in january. he has of the places he has to visit, including a long- postponed trip to indonesia, where he spent time as a young man. i think it is difficult to say
that it is a mistake to skip china. we are expecting secretary of defense dick to visit china at some point before he leaves off -- secretary of defense robert gates to visit china at some point before he leaves office. look at where secretary clinton and robert gates are right now, in asia. they've been going back constantly. the u.s. presence in the region is fairly significant, and it is not just about china. host: 4 the chinese, culturally, what does it mean that secretary gates did not expect an invitation from china and now he says he will go, and for the chinese and their culture, what does it mean? anything? nothing? guest: i don't think it means anything specific rate and terms of culture, you have to look it -- the more broadly -- i don't think it means anything specific. in terms of culture, you have to look into a more broadly than
just the schedules. the impression was, certainly in southeast asia, but the west is not maintaining a very active presence politically -- that the u.s. was not attending a very active presence politically, diplomatically, and that needed to be corrected. some people see the u.s. as had a containment strategy and there are fear mongers and had their -- fear mongers in their culture who worry about the relationship with the u.s. and see the u.s. with mal intent. host: we are talking about china's military buildup. drew thompson is the china studies director at the nixon center. what is the pla? guest: people's liberation army, 2.2 million chinese citizens who are active service members in the defense of their
own country. it has a long and rich history, starting out with the civil war period. it is essentially the party of the army, the army responsible for keeping the communist party in power. it is a professional army, for sure. host: what impact does a buildup of the pla have for america and other countries? guest: that is an open question. the build itself is not necessarily a challenge or threat. the question is what do they intend to do, what is the nature of the buildup? that is a question that japan and other countries in asia -- they have to engage china very carefully and cooperate wherever possible to determine what the
intent is. the build runs a lot of risks. china has engaged in a very progressive modernization process, but it controls the pace of that itself. it determines how fast it wants to grow, a major concern amongst chinese strategists is that they get caught up in an arms race. unfortunately, they have found ourselves in another plastic and traditional security bill, -- found themselves in a rather plastic and additional security dilemma. it is spiraling into something more expensive than they intended. host: i want to get out there for our viewers your background on the issue. guest: well, i have lived in china for about 10 of lthe last 20 years. when i was not living there, i was working and studying on projects for china.
i've been working on policy issues here in washington for about 10 years now. host: oregon, mark, democratic line. you are the first color. caller: good morning, folks. thank god for c-span. sir, your expertise is appreciated. for me, all of this revolves taiwan,ime -- around and that which is going on around north korea. what is the inability -- inevitability that taiwan is eventually going to become part of china, and what will the creek for us? -- what will that create for us? guest: taiwan is central to the military and security relationship with the united states, and it has always been something of a challenge.
in 1932, the negotiated document a -- 1972, the negotiated document between the chinese and president nixon noted taiwan as a divisive factor that we needed to manage. it is impossible to predict how taiwan will turn out. the mainland's an-- mainland and taiwan are inextricably linked to the question is whether a peaceful resolution will be achieved to the satisfaction of the taiwanese people. it will continue to be a source of stress as the u.s. maintains its commitment to tim -- t o o taiwan. it places taiwan in a position of strength. it is somewhat ironic that much
of the tension that has occurred in the last year has been related to the announcement of taiwan.sale tuppeo but it occurs at that time went across great relationship -- cross-strait relationship is at its best place ever. host: tweet here. guest: that is a really good question. china has been investing really heavily in creating new submarines and a land-based missile defense. it has been actively getting technology, both domestically and imports and other means to create an effective classic
strategic deterrence. that said, it is still very small. and as a handful of missiles compared to the united states. if we look at the negotiations with the russians at the moment, china is a marginal actor, as the u.s. and russia compared their stockpiles. china has the minimal means for deterrence. the use this summer it is important, because that provides -- more c-span.org -- the use of submarines is important, because that provides a more active deterrence. submarines are very difficult to deter, very difficult to track. most of the countries in the area don't possess adequate capability to conduct an -- to conduct anti-submarine acts.
host: ohio. good morning, gary. caller: since we are spending six times more than -- host: than china. caller: ok, and the reason for that is all of our foreign aid is on the military bill. if they are going to talk about putting money and cutting -- cutting money and cutting money from social security, they have to start with foreign aid. it is all wrapped up together. why is a person from industrial part of your background be -- or about the military buildup if it was not just to protect our interests of big companies in
china? guest: well, i mean, if you are looking at economic interests abroad, both the united states and china have a significant international interests that they have to protect, and the military is one tool to protect them. if you look at the u.s. marine corps, one of their primary missions abroad is not just invading countries like afghanistan and providing security there but evacuate american citizens in places -- but he evacuating american citizens from places where there has been a natural disaster or unrest the united states will need to protect investments abroad. it has gotten more and more economic interests, and more and more major chinese companies are investing abroad i infrastructure.
the pla will eventually be called upon to protect those interests, either directly or indirectly, putting boots on the ground when needed to evacuate chinese citizens, or supporting foreign militaries or the investments are to protect chinese interests, much like the u.s. does one cooperating with allies abroad. guest: space and cyber is a complicated issue an important one. secretary gates in ' has announced any partnership initiative -- in australia has announced eight new partnership initiative for surveillance. australia is uniquely qualified because of its location. remember when john glenn flew over in his first flight and
perth turn on the lights for him -- it is at the crossroads of space. it is natural that we would work together on that. that is not as heavily -- not necessarily geared to confront china. there is a need for this regardless of china's rise. all countries face cyber threats. last week, we had a major attack in denmark, and we don't of -- who conducted -- we had an attack in myanmar, and we don't know who conducted it. it may have been the myanmar government. it's hard to pin down. there is a universal need for developing nations to build cyber infrastructure to defend themselves. there is no reason that china cannot be part of an architecture and the feature that contributes to the security
and -- the internet -- part of an architecture in the future the contribute to the security of the internet. host: next call. caller: the question i had was already asked about the monetary amounts. my idea is to cut the military and half -- military in half and use the money to help us your incident using the money to help everybody ever placed -- to help us here instead of using the money to help everybody everyplace else. host: this is the topic this morning, china's military buildup. drew thompson is the china studies director at the nixon center. michael on the republican line in sterling heights, michigan. caller: i am of the vietnam veteran and i am apprehensive
about red china. the red chinese have killed 61 million people. communism was caused more human misery, death, and despair that all of the annals of human experience. it is not on the scale as under mao zedong but it is still a totalitarian system. guest: china is still a police state, but they are a far cry from the comments of the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's -- from the communists of the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's. they have opened their economy and lifted hundreds of millions of poverty. the standards of living are much greater than they were 30 years ago. the question is, how is the u.s. going to adapt to the changes, how will we coopt china, and how
will we help china should its choices so that it can treat its own people with compassion and dignity and make sure that their rights are protected as well as being irresponsible pleasure to turn the current -- as well as being a responsible player, the term at the current administration is using, are around the world? host: medina, ohio, leslie, go ahead. caller: drew, thank you for your candid and honest report. it is refreshing. china has changed, and to the vietnam veteran, he is right on, and it is something that can come back, even though it has moved from the vill -- veitnam
era. we have got to spend our military resources on anti- submarine were for a -- warfare. at how we collect the money -- and how will we collect the money they vote? guest: in terms of chinese holdings of u.s. treasuries, it is about 6% or 7%. it is far from being a dominant older -- holder. that should make us all take a deep breath and pause. china cannot use its holdings of treasuries as economic leverage against the united states. it would not be in their interest rate it would harm their currency as well as ours. they contain no advantage to doing that. -- they can gain no advantage by doing that.
i think it is really a non- issue. it happened in the last election cycle -- it is not a weapon. in terms of the chinese submarine abilities, they are growing, but they are a long wait from being able to operate abroad. they are still a coastal forts, and if you look at the way china is investing in its navy, they are looking more and in -- investing in coastal craft than the blue water may navy. the 10,000 at the stores would be the largest ones in its fleet -- the 10,000 destroyers would be the largest ones in its fleet. only two are on a range with the largest u.s. frigates.
in terms of the submarine, isn't asymmetrical threat. -- it is an asymmetrical threat. the u.s. has a fairly strong capabilities to protect its floating assets. the real trick is working with our allies in japan, south korea, malaysia, to help build their capacities and defend their maritime rounds so that they can ensure that when some marines entered their territory, it is peaceful -- submarines enter the territory, is peaceful. host: republican line, you are on with drew thompson. caller: i want you to address why china is doing what is doing, and go back to the first of the unequal treaties, the treaty of nanking, and how all these wars began because of trade deficits with the british.
this is white china today is doing what they are doing grid -- why time that today is doing what they are doing. history repeats itself, but the circumstances are always different. when the british assault on the faulty chips before, -- they lost -- one of the british sold them at befall the ships will for -- sold them the faulty ships before, they lost the battle. they know their history and past. host: sounds like she knows the history as well. guest: up until 1997, when hong kong was returned, they see that as the century of humiliation.
it was a time of great uncertainty and tortured. -- and hardship. they were grappling with the challenge of bringing in foreign technology, and was a big challenge, and they did not succeed. i had a different formula where they can bring in technology -- they have a different formula with a can bring in technology and they are not worried as much about the communist party mandate. we see the same thing with the internet. when the internet was introduced into china, we thought it would be the undoing communism and the leadership. it has not turned out that way. they had adapted they are continuing to adapt. the world is not as bismarckian as it was. china is not falling into the same trap as the soviet union
dead. the question is whether or not the new security relationship in the future is going to help the united states and china or whether it will be 80 some equation -- whether it will be a zero sum equation. host: 4 worth, texas, john on the democratic line. caller: thank you. i find it a little bit ironic that the trillion dollars we owe china was entirely borrowed that could invade iraq and afghanistan. it seems like your guest is currently concerned about the buildup of the chinese military. one of the previous callers said it is not even 1/10 at the size of our own military. correct me if i'm wrong, but i see that as the ankle you are taking here. guest: there is a lot of
distrust of the united states abroad. there's a lot of concern that the united states means other countries harbor we see that a lot in central asia. -- there is a lot of concern that the united states means other countries harm. we see that a lot in central asia. the u.s. presence there they don't see as legitimate, they don't see it as being endorsed by the united nations. china is not injured into security efforts in afghanistan -- china is not contributing to security efforts in afghanistan. they don't see us as a trust for the actors in central asia -- as trust with the actors and central asia. they see a different model were they would like a more consensus-driven approach that is more encompassing. and unfortunately, one that
potentially excludes the united states. that is where the u.s. needs to push back, partly because our presence in these organizations were the chinese have a dominant presence is an important way to show the chinese and other countries that our intentions are generally positive. host: steve is joining us on the democratic line. caller: my comment is simply, i believe that china is in a lot of ways wiser than we are because they know history better than we are. china has very little interest in -- and thanks very little about taking us over -- thinks very little about taking us over or competing militarily. they are building their military because they have to in this world, but they have figured out a way to weaken our country and
strengthen their country is economically. guest: i think there is something to that. the real challenges economic interests and protecting them, but around the world and at home. the military has a minor role to play there. it is more important that the u.s. continues to pursue a trade agenda more aggressively, that it does not sit back and lose out in the realm of economic condition. we see china forming a free trade relationships with the allies.ost important yet we are still providers up security. look at asean. even as the u.s. relationship with several asean countries grows, china has trade
agreements with all of them. that concerns many countries in southeast asia. they are economically dependent on china, and china might use that as coercion. i think it is difficult to see at this point, but in the future is a possibility. the trading relationship between the u.s., china, and the rest of the world is complicated and integrated. but thankfully, in some ways, it is not really a security question. the role the military here is ensuring of freedom of navigation, freedom of control. that is an area where you see positive developments. you see china's contribution to the maritime policy missions in africa, cargo to and from the gulf. it is a vital contribution to security, and an area where china and the u.s. have a similar goals.
all countries have a similar interest there. it is the areas where economic interest coincide with mutual security interests and we have opportunities to cooperate. host: drew thompson is the nixon center's china studies director. line.n the republican mode caller: i would like to see comments on at the position of the philippines and that part of the world as we close down military bases, and appoint a submarine -- a point with the submarines is also being closed. if you read about world war ii, that is every geographically important part of the world. guest: it is, but the uss made
it very clear that it will --us has made it very clear that it will maintain the structure. it is not looking to expand, secretary gates has made that clear. but is looking to expand with a military allies, and it is that just southeast asia, but northeast asia as well -- not just south east asia, but northeast asia as well. the philippines is critical, but the u.s. as determine that maintaining a civilian relationship with the leadership is more important than maintaining these bases that date back to world war ii. the infrastructure in places like guam, building relationships with the singapore, settling issues with japan -- we have a lot of debate about the status of okinawa.
host: a couple more phone calls. harrisburg, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. mr. thompson, i hear more about the chinese military buildup. i go back to november 1950, and the puppet regime in north korea and the lives lost and the frozen feet and hands of our soldiers that did not have the proper equipment to fight. i think about that, and i think about what they might do in the ensuing year or two or possibly five if they have a troop buildup if they go after soft. and the korean peninsula -- if they go after south korea on the korean peninsula. guest: since normalizing
relations with south korea in 1992, they have had a fairly balanced relationship and the balance it with north korea. i don't think there is concern in south korea about china somehow invading south korea. again, there is economic interdependence between the two countries. china -- it is their no. 1 trading partner. there is concern in south korea but the economic relationship that surpasses the european or u.s. relationship might translate into a lack of leverage. i'm not a big believer in that. i think it has proven so far to be effective.
an active trading relationship was not created a different security environment. it is not about whether the economic relationship creates leverage. it is about what the to these countries can maintain economic dynamism -- it is about whether each of these countries can make an economic dynamism. should there be a situation where china is compelled to send forces to north korea, it is impossible to know what the terms would be or what the causes would be. it is hard to predict the future in this respect. we have been guessing that north korea would collapse for a long time and we have been wrong. the prospects are slim at the moment, but if we look at the china and north korea relationship, china is committed to making sure north korea -- to
ensuring north korea's survival. but that is not a military equation, it is mostly an economic one. it provides investment to north korea to keep its infrastructure rowling. that is how they are supporting it, not with weapons or troops. host: washington, d.c., go ahead. caller: you have described how china is building an asymmetrical capacity in the taiwan area to deter the united states from coming to taiwan's defense but i want you to comment on our end to do it -- our ambiguity to not coming to the defense of taiwan. guest: the u.s. is committed to helping taiwan defend itself.
i think that the current president of taiwan is on track towards that. he used his first term to cement an economic relationship that benefits taiwan and now he is looking for political advances in its next term. he has hinted that there are opportunities for dialogue between the two sides, opportunities to attract two, associations with retired officers, as well as the possibility for a peace treaty. there are positive developments that the u.s. policy towards taiwan have been able. host: 10 at t -- tennessee, you have a question or comment? caller: i wish the united states would stop spending so much money on defense, being a
threat to the rest of the world, and perhaps the rest of the world would look at us and say, "we don't have to spend all our money on defense." we are the only country taking over other countries. host: republican line, and new jersey. caller: two things. one, in general, i see the threat of war in the next 10 to 15 years to be quite large. if you look at it in terms of history, china has abandoned communism. there is the old story that nobody believes in communism except american college professors. china has instead taken up the 19th century nationalism that is giving its people a unifying idea, which is the source of all the troubles of europe in the 20th century.
i think that we sort of seat china with the same sort of psychology that germany had vis- a-vis where the u.s. as the hegemon is denying china its place in the sun. ec had a lot on chinese chat boards where they log on to make comments, were they constantly referred to the united states as holding china down. and anything that was it a tribute, a tributary or possession of the chinese empire, should by natural light be under the sway of beijing today. and contrary to what democrats have said, the united states military -- there is a basic misconception. we pay our pride its $20,000, sgt $40,000, colonels and generals $150,000.
the huge military budget we have is a lot personnel expense that people like china do not carry. host: we will get a response because we don't have a lot of time. guest: we don't have a lot of time to answer every complex question. i don't think we're headed to war with china or anyone else but the u.s. has a fairly good image abroad in many places. the countries that fear the worst of the united states are the ones that know the least about it and have least contact. it is monday, which all the optimists to date. i see this as and -- we should all be optimists today. i see this as an opportunity to cooperate where possible. that is where the pla presents a number of opportunities. him and carried assistance in disasters.
-- humanitarian assistance in disasters. the incidents recently where pla doctors serve on u.s. medical ships to learn from each other and build relationships. we are increasingly seeing extended the personnel -- exchanges of personnel. as that goes on, we will see less and less of these extremist views on chinese blogs. when they have the opportunity to meet u.s. officers and find out that we are not hellbent to invade china or central asia or colonize the rest of the world. they are not seeking at the moment to expand their territory. there are lingering territorial disputes, but jchina at the way it is now is the way it is going to be, at least geographically. host: to read more of dirt thompson, 02 -